Is Your Protagonist "Different"?

 By Thomas Kies

I recently finished two books back-to-back that I enjoyed but for completely different reasons.  The Maid by Nita Prose and Holly by Stephen King.  

The Maid was described by the Washington Post as “A cozy mystery to take along on vacation . . . a lighthearted mystery that shines as Molly evolves and learns to connect.”

The book blurb for Holly reads “Holly Gibney, one of Stephen King’s most compelling and ingeniously resourceful characters, returns in this thrilling novel to solve the gruesome truth behind multiple disappearances in a midwestern town.”

These are two completely different novels with one interesting likeness.  Their protagonists are neurodivergent.  Until recently, I’d never even heard the term.  

According to Forbes Health "Everyone’s brain operated differently.  For the average individual, brain functions, behaviors and processing are expected to meet the milestones set by society for developmental growth.  For those who veer either slightly, or significantly, outside of these parameters, their brain functions could be classified as neurodivergent.”

It goes on to say,” Neurodivergent is a non-medical umbrella term that describes propel with variation in their mental functions, and can included conditions such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or other neurological or developmental conditions such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),”

The protagonist for The Maid, Molly Gray, is clearly autistic and utterly charming.

The protagonist for Holly, Holly Gibney, seems to be on the spectrum…and is utterly charming.

In spite of some of the descriptions, I’m not sure I’d describe the Maid as a “cozy”.  But it is fun to read and when you’re finished, you’ll feel good.

Holly, on the other hand, is grim, and as the book cover describes, “gruesome”. King’s writing is wonderful, of course, but I was happy to be done with the book.  

By the way, it was one of King’s more political novels.  He doesn’t pull any punches about people who refuse to get vaccinated for Covid, wear masks, and there’s no love lost for Donald Trump in the book. 

That’s not why I was happy when I got to the ending of Holly. While this was a mystery/thriller it was also classic King horror and this one got under my skin. 

In both books, the protagonist is “different”.  

Isn’t that what we want in our heroes?  We want them to be brave, of course, and driven, like a dog with a bone when it comes to solving mysteries and righting wrongs.  But we also want them to be different than regular people.  

The protagonists should be memorable and someone we care about.  A terrific example is Sue Grafton’s character Kinsey Millhone.  

And if it’s someone we don’t immediately identify with, we want to be fascinated by them, like Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. 

Then there's the protagonists who are quirky like Monk and Columbo. My own recurring protagonist, Geneva Chase, has plenty of quirks of her own--drinks too much, makes bad life decisions, has questionable morals.  But she has a good heart and readers identify with her and like her.  

So, in your own “work in progress”, what makes your protagonist different?  What makes him or her likable? 

Kinsey Headed for TV?

by Thomas Kies

 I read an Associated Press article in my daily newspaper this morning that I found jarring.  

Yes, most news stories I read, see, or hear are pretty disturbing, but I found this one particularly upsetting.  The headline reads, “Sue Grafton’s alphabet mysteries headed to TV.”

Most writers would celebrate when their book or series of books are picked up for the silver screen.  I have several writers who are friends who have been lucky enough to get deals with studios for their mystery/thrillers. I know I’d love to see my protagonist, Geneva Chase, played out on the screen. 

But Sue Grafton, recalling her unhappy experiences writing for television movies before becoming a world celebrated novelist, made a vow that her Kinsey Millhone series would never become a television adaption. 

In 1997, Sue Grafton said in January Magazine, “I will never sell Kinsey to Hollywood.  And I have made my children promise not to sell her.  We’ve taken a blood oath, and if they do so I will come back from the grave: which they know I can do.  They’re going to have to pass the word on to my grandchildren: we do not sell out our grandma.”

That sounds pretty definite. Sue Grafton passed away in 2017 and to my knowledge, never changed her mind about her alphabet mysteries becoming a TV series.  When announcing her death, Grafton’s daughter, Jamie Clark, publicly reaffirmed her mother’s vow. 

And yet, A+E has acquired the rights to the Kinsey Millhone novels. Steve Humphrey, Grafton’s husband, and according to the Associated Press is also the executive producer of the series, makes the claim that “the times-and the medium- have changed.”

Mr. Humphrey went on the say in the article, “Television has greatly evolved since Sue was writing in Hollywood in the 1980s.  From her experience then, she was concerned that her stories and characters would be diminished when they were adapted.  But the power of television has transformed over time, so too has the quality from writing and acting to the production values and viewing experience.”

Mr. Humphrey posted that quote on Sue Grafton’s Facebook page and there have been over 2700 comments and the announcement was shared over 900 times.  The responses were a mixed bag.  Many of Grafton’s fans are excited about the adaptation and many are appalled that her husband has gone against her wishes. 

I’ve been a Sue Grafton fan for decades.  My protagonist, Geneva Chase, has been favorably compared by two national reviews to Kinsey Millhone.  A compliment that would be hard to top as far as I’m concerned.  Would I like to see a well-done adaptation of her alphabet mysteries?  Of course, I would.

But the author didn't want anyone to do an adaptation at all.  

A friend of mine, who is well versed in the mystery field, pointed out what a studio did to C.J Box’s Cassie Dewell series—now called Big Sky.  He’s concerned that they’ll turn the adaptation into “Hungarian goulash.  Not to insult any Hungarians.  Or insult goulash.” 

Again,
I have two writer friends who have television deals in the works and I'm thrilled for them, and frankly, a little jealous.

Would I like to have my Geneva Chase novels adapted for television?  Sure, if they were done right.  That’s what I think Sue Grafton’s concerns were.  It saddens me that the family didn’t respect her wishes.  

Christmas Lights and Second Drafts

Christmas is upon us –– the season of good cheer, good food and drink, and time spent with close friends and family. For me, it’s also a time to regroup: I’m between semesters and chipping away on the second draft of a novel.

No two writers work the same way, and finding one’s process is like discovering how to tie a tie: You can hear about how to do it, even see it done, but until you actually finish a novel, you might as well stand before the mirror and try to do it backwards. Some writers outline. (Jeffery Deaver gave a keynote address I heard saying he spends eight months writing the outline, three writing the book.) Others say writing is like driving at night –– you can see only as far as your headlights, writing and plotting as you go. Other writers fall somewhere in between.

Part of developing a writing process is knowing your strengths and weaknesses. I do well to focus on character and dialogue, aspects that have always come easily. I’m never going to plot like Dan Brown. It’s simply not in my DNA. Moreover, I believe all writers, to some degree, write what we read. I grew up on series novels –– Parker, MacDonald, Chandler, Grafton, Paretsky, Burke (both Jan and James Lee) –– and I have no real interest in writing one-and-dones, stand-alones. Character interests me. I want to learn more about their lives in the vein Michael Connelly describes in his essay “The Mystery of Mystery Writing”: “The mystery has evolved in recent decades to be as much an investigation of the investigator as an inquiry of the crime at hand. Investigators now look inward for the solutions and means of restoring order. In the content of their own character, they find the clues” (Walden Book Report, September, 1998). I like to have a large canvas when I’m creating the arc of a character, a canvas that might span several books. I enjoy following a character, see her grow and develop and take on new challenges, and I enjoy books whose ill deeds expose moral ambiguity. All of this means the human condition is front and center in my plots: people do things, then, for relatively simple reasons.

So as I near the halfway point in draft No. 2, I’m taking inventory. The characters have come to life and are, fingers crossed, consistent and believable. Ditto the setting. The plot, though, has to be reeled in, simplified. I’m always looking for a way to find a twist at the end while honoring Poe’s and Chandler’s mandates that a mystery not only play fair with readers but also conclude with all necessary clues being front and center, unlike real-world crimes where aspects of the case always go unexplained. But much like the box marked “Christmas Lights” in my garage, this storyline needs someone to untangle it, and like that box in the garage, no amount of money will get my kids to do it for me. That means cutting and adding –– eliminating some red herrings, punching up other characters’ roles.

In the end, all I really want for Christmas is to not face draft No. 3.

Happy holidays!

Three Starts

I'm writing something new, something I hope will launch a series. I've spent a lot of time pre-writing. I have an outline I like (you know me and outlines: it's a starting point and a safety net). I have characters I would enjoy growing over years, a husband-wife team.

What I'm toying with is the point of view, usually something I never second-guess. I've written a present-tense, first-person opening, and I've written a third-person, multiple-POV opening — each running close to 40 pages — and now I want to try a first-person, past-tense voice.

I grew up reading Robert B. Parker, Ross Macdonald, John D. MacDonald, Sue Grafton, Sara Paretsky, and others writing in that vein. As a reader, I enjoy the walk-behind-the-character-and-view-the-world-through-the-speaker's-eyes vantagepoint. It offers an intimate relationship with the speaker and just maybe with the writer. I'm reading Philip Roth's Exit Ghost right now and pause every few pages to reread a passage. The plot isn't pulling me along; however, the narrator's voice and Roth's turn-of-phrase is providing any and all narrative tension.

Also, it's difficult to separate plot from character when we're dealing with first-person protagonists. The plot is limited by the knowledge and capabilities of your speaker, and when you feature the first-person voice, you must allow readers an in-depth knowledge of your character's limitations; you must play fair with readers, far more so than when writing in the third-person voice.

You've got to show your hand often. I enjoy this type of writing — exploring the depths (and shallows) of my characters. I like that it's akin to acting — stepping into voice and playing the part for a few hours a day. Third-person doesn't provide me the same type of experience.

So I have two partials sitting on my desk and will write the same book from a third vantage point now, the first-person past-tense. It's all a unique and fresh writing experience.